Well, either. I'm asking about 3. Bg5 in particular because an oponent recently tried that move against me and I was pretty sure it was a weak move, but I couldn't think of how to exploit it. I did win the game, but not because of any particular strategy that revolved around exploiting that move.
3.Bg5 against Nimzo-indian defense
Sort:
Sep 12, 2009
0
#3
So the game went like this:
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3. Bg5 d5 4.Nf3? Nd7
I really had no clue what White was trying to do, and I still fail to see what (if anything) is being given up to Black for him to capitalize on.
That's the Torre Attack, not the Nimzo Indian.
Sep 12, 2009
0
#5
BlackWaive wrote:
That's the Torre Attack, not the Nimzo Indian.
Would you mind elaborating please?
Juila, nothing much to elaborate on, torre attack is a poor description. The "torre attack" refers to lines like d4 d5 Nf3 Nf6 Bg5, the bg5 half pin and the absence of c4 (which can be delayed/not played at all) is what makes it a torre attack. While I see this tranposing to a QGD a lot, white can play into colle like systems (with the dark bishop outside the pawn chain), black can play things like 3. Ne5, so it leads to unique lines all of its own
But since white DID play c4, I think it's better described as a queens gambit declined, as it looks quite similar to the line d4 d5 c4 (the gambit) e6 (the gambit declined) Nf3 Nf6 Bg5. In general, a line is often a queens gambit if c4 was played by white.
Correct me if I'm mistaken as well, I'm just speaking from personal experience.
I've been reading up on the NID, and it has come to my attention that nobody seems to go for 3. Bg5.
Why is that a bad move? I'm aware of how black could expliot it witht he "Elephant Trap", but I fail to see the theoretical grounds which make 3. Bg5 a bad move in general (or is the posibility of falling for the elephant trap they only real shortcoming therein?).